Policy Dive: Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act
In a video segment aired at the end of 2020, BBC’s China correspondent John Sudworth published aerial footage of a long line of people being marched from a Uyghur internment camp in Xinjiang to an adjacent, newly constructed textile factory. This footage was yet another piece of evidence exposing the well-documented link between CCP internment camps and factories. It has become undeniably clear that the Chinese government is utilizing the mass internment of Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities to sustain an abusive system of forced labor. This system is not only horrific but extremely significant to the international community given Xinjiang’s status as a major production hub for Chinese textile exports. Xinjiang produces 84% of China’s total cotton and roughly 20% of the entire world’s supply. The CCP’s use of forced Uyghur labor is an issue that cannot be ignored by the world. Not only are there moral concerns with forced labor but legal issues as well, as the U.S. has outlawed any goods shown to be produced with forced labor since 1930 with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. So, how can the United States government hold the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) accountable and ensure that American corporations and consumers are not engaging in or enabling illegitimate manufacturing practices in Xinjiang?
A Chinese clothing factory with Uyghur laborers.
Whereas the 1930 act puts the burden of proof on American agencies to show that a certain product was made by involuntary workers, this legal framework makes it very difficult to effectively crack down on forced labor in Xinjiang because of the sheer size of its cotton industry. A proposed remedy to this issue is making its way through the halls of Congress now, in the form of the bipartisan Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act sponsored by Florida Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican, and Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat. This act would enact a “rebuttable presumption” on all manufacturers in Xinjiang by automatically assuming any good coming from the region is made from forced labor, thus placing the burden of proof on the manufacturers to demonstrate to American regulators that no forced labor was used in their respective manufacturing processes. The act references an overwhelming amount of evidence documenting the existence of widespread forced-labor in Xinjiang to justify the new “rebuttable presumption”.
Fortunately, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act has a very realistic path to being enacted. In rare fashion, both House and Senate Republicans and Democrats have largely agreed on the issue. Not only has there been bipartisan recognition of the human rights violations happening in Xinjiang, but lawmakers have also been mainly on the same page on how to take action against forced labor. The House of Representatives discussed and voted upon a prior version of this act last September, resoundingly supporting its passage with a 406-3 vote. However, the act stalled and lost momentum in Senate discussions. Now, with Rubio and Merkley going to work in the Senate, revived efforts to put this proposed legislation in place are off to a strong start, after the Senate unanimously voted in favor of the act on Wednesday, July 14. The piece of legislation will need to make it through the House before reaching President Biden’s desk. Though the timeline for the act moving forward is unclear, at the moment it seems quite likely that President Biden will eventually sign it into law.
There is no doubt that the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act is well-intentioned and is taking aim at the heart of the economic benefits that incentivize continued Uyghur persecution, but it remains to be seen what unintended consequences the law could have. Opposition largely comes from multinational companies and business lobbying groups, as they cite the collateral damage that has resulted from other similar historical precedents in international trade. For instance, Neil Bradley from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the largest lobbying group in the US, wrote to the House of Representatives last September to express his concern with the situation in Xinjiang, noting that the proposed act could potentially “prove ineffective and may hinder efforts to prevent human rights abuses”. Bradley cited the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, in which Section 1502 required public companies to ensure that materials from their products were not sourced from the ongoing conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where the lack of adequate inspectors and auditors made it very difficult for several manufacturers to show that their products were clean. Bradley described the act as placing a “de facto embargo against material sourced from that region”, thus hurting “legitimate miners”. While there were certainly some issues with Section 1502, it is vital to note that the DRC in 2010, a country plagued by rebel insurgencies and widespread poverty, was a far cry from today’s China, the world’s second-largest economy and a global power. It is understandable to relax standards for human rights and environmental concerns as a developing country and economy grow, but now China has reached a position to be held to international norms, particularly in repudiating forced labor practices. The act may unintentionally hurt some legitimate manufacturers in Xinjiang, but evidence from the region suggests such businesses are far and few in between.
Zara has come under criticism for its ties with Uyghur forced labor. In March 2021, the company posted then deleted a statement declaring their stance against forced labor. Now, French prosecutors have launched an investigation into into the company’s manufacturing practices in China.
Multi-national companies like Apple, Nike, and Coca-Cola, among several other corporations whose products are known around the globe, are also lobbying against the act. They argue that a significant consequence of potentially enacting the law will be large-scale disruption of their Xinjiang supply chains as well as broader Chinese pushback and potential boycotts. Such companies have voiced concerns that while they strongly condemn the abuses the Uyghurs face, Congress needs to tone down aspects of the Uyghur Forced Labor Act. They insist that forcing them to scrutinize or relocate significant manufacturing sites could affect American consumers in that some products may not be as readily available and that prices will likely increase due to higher labor costs. Given the sheer magnitude of their operations in China and the CCP’s willingness to organize economic boycotts, such consequences are realistic, but the moral and legal concerns of American companies profiting from modern-day slave labor far outweigh these economic concerns. Thus, while the act is far from perfect, the choice is clear for the House of Representatives and President Biden to approve it.
“The moral and legal concerns of American companies profiting from modern-day slave labor far outweigh these economic concerns.”
Other actions that the U.S. government needs to take in addressing the Uyghur forced labor crisis revolve around passing the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act and acting accordingly to ensure the law has its intended effects. This begins with the House of Representatives voting on the act as soon as possible, with President Biden following suit by signing the act when it reaches his desk. Next, the U.S. Department of Commerce needs to ensure that the proper inspection protocols are in place to investigate Xinjiang manufacturers’ connection to forced labor so that the U.S.does not experience a repeat of 2010’s Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which may have unintentionally punished and shut down some ethical manufacturers because they did not have an adequate opportunity to demonstrate innocence. In addition, the U.S. must diplomatically leverage its global standing to urge our allies to crack down on Xinjiang labor. At the G-7 summit earlier this summer, President Biden urged the United States’ allies to speak out against the Chinese government’s use of forced Uyghur labor. While Biden’s effort was certainly a step in the right direction, especially considering leaders such as France’s Emmanuel Macron have generally preferred a more cautious rather than confrontational approach, criticism is far from enough. Rather, collective bans on Xinjiang products with legal frameworks similar to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act could place much more pressure on China given the tangible economic impact of the world’s most developed countries demanding better behavior from Chinese manufacturers.
According to Brenda Smith from the Customs and Border Protection’s Office of Trade, the U.S. imported roughly $9 billion worth of cotton goods from China in 2020. The United States government and the American consumer base have an immense amount of economic leverage that they must utilize to end Uyghur slave labor and uphold human rights in Xinjiang. As the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act triumphantly exits the Senate, it is evident that it offers a tangible path towards totally distancing the U.S. and the average American consumer from unethically manufactured products that actually incentivize the Uyghur Genocide.While it could catalyze some supply chain disruptions, the act serves as the best and most feasible step that the U.S. government can take right now. This act alone however will not put an end to corporate profiteering from the human rights crisis in Xinjiang. Government action, in the form of diplomacy and the vigilant monitoring of domestic regulators, must be supplemented by individual consumers withholding purchases of products tainted by Uyghur forced labor.
